Or, after the one year trial period, if all was ok, we could agree to extend the concept for another year, with the same pull down provision, in exchange for additional gains in ur contract.

It is bad faith to negotiate something, then back out of it, for no other reason than other than, "because we wanted to."

That pull down provision gives us a lot of power. It gives us a lot of leverage. You shouldn't want our union to misuse it.

 

I don't think its bad faith at all as long as the membership is against it. Maybe if the MEC walked in on day after MEMRAT and says "don[t even bother, we didn't want this anyway" you might have a case. But its 100% legit to go in at any time and credibly say "hey our membership didn't like this so we have to pull it down IAW what we mutually negotiated because as we all know this whole TA wouldn't have MEMRAT'd in the first place without the pulldown provision and our pilot don't want this." The company would have no choice but to respectfully agree with that.

Your hypothetical example of perpetual one year extensions for gains is interesting. However I don't think the company would go for that. They want something from this far greater than whatever they are willing to do during a friendly trial period. That is the entire point of this. I'd also be surprised if DALPA wasn't spring loaded to make this permanent if it was 100% up to them. Would you be against this being made permanent?

 

Yes. We can go in any time after the agreement and say our membership doesn't like it. It seems like what some are wanting is making a push to drop it before it even gets started.


As for making it permanent: As with everything, I'd have to see how it was being used, what gains we got, and what protections and were put in place for us, before I would be ok with it being made permanent.

 

Once with Kragness as negotiating chair. Once under Wilson. Once under Maza.

It gathered steam after the commuter data came out in Centerline.

I recall it being a "nice to have" item instead of a hard target. Jeff Carlson spoke about it at an LEC meeting in late 2001. Something like, "If ALPA would bring it back to us, we'd take a hard look at it.". [That's my paraphrase of his comment!]

My sense is that it might have been in play after 9/11 if it was low impact, and would have mitigated furloughs in a measurable way. Unless we modified the APA system, it wouldn't work...and the APA system required more staffing than company-timed AEs.

 

Well, if so, then we would have the answer to their intent, no? The easy answer to the company saying, "We have to delete the pull-down provision," is to say, "Fine, then, let's pull the whole thing down. Experiment over."

Now,to your last point of DALPA's fecklessness.... Yeah, well, there is that....

 

Yeah haha I guess. Not so much feckless as it is hoodwinked maybe? I mean this is their baby after all. And if the one year trial period goes well enough, hey, why not extend it? You're not a conspiracy theorist are you? I mean, we really, really don't think they'll do that...

 

The OP was a commuting angry puppy guy out of Atlanta, if memory serves.
He also moved to Atlanta. He has heartburn over other people who chose not to move to Mecca getting some sort of "good deal" (that is unknowledgeable at this point) that he would no longer get since he moved to Mecca. Now this thread has morphed to how/if we can kill this provision.

I plan to vote yes on this TA, despite the "poison pill" that this VB thing is. Then again, it's in my interest, just as it's in the interest of the OP to "kill VB."

Bottom line here is this...We are a union, but not really in the sense of most unions. Most union workers are in lock step because each company offered provision affects each union member similarly. Not so in this white collar airline union. Some folks pack their wagons and move to Mecca, buy a hopped-up golf cart, and cruise the cart lanes of Peachtree City to their kids' soccer games. Others are in different life situations where commuting to do this job is a necessity.

I really hate to agree with Bond nee TSquare nee all his other screen names, but he is essentially correct about 12 pages back.

If this thing is an abortion, I trust our membership (and our current MEC leadership) to do the right thing. OTOH, if the company downplays it for a year then turns it into a beast we can no longer control, that could be a problem.

Just my $0.02 on what I currently see as a fat nothingburger we seem to generate thousands of posts about.

 

Gents,

Now that your TA has been ratified, I'm interested to get a handle on precisely what you guys have agreed to for VBs. If someone could post or PM the exact language or something close to it I'd be much obliged.

A couple of years ago UAL mgmt approached the MEC with a VB proposal that was immediately nixed by our side. If what you guys agreed to at DAL proves successful, I expect UAL management to try again. Thanks much.

 

Nobody knows the details of VB. It still has to be figured out.

According to the TA2015 implementation email, the deferred effective date for a VB MOU is no later than 1-31-2018.

 

Which is in conflict with the language of the MOU.

Duration

A. This MOU will become effective on its date of signing and will remain in effect for a period of one year following [DOS] unless extended by agreement of the parties. The provisions of Paragraph 1. Virtual Basing and Paragraph 2. Temporary Duty may be terminated at any time, separately or jointly, upon written notice by either party.